Tearing Down Statues and "Defunding Police" will not change life for the disadvant
Excellent column from David Brooks explaining how tearing down, kneeling, defunding and politically correcting are not going to result in real change for the oppressed. Real change will require good politicians.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...logo152x23.gif
America Is Facing 5 Epic Crises All at Once
This is not the time to obsess about symbolism.
There are five gigantic changes happening in America right now. The first is that we are losing the fight against Covid-19. Our behavior doesn’t have anything to do with the reality around us. We just got tired so we’re giving up.
Second, all Americans, but especially white Americans, are undergoing a rapid education on the burdens African-Americans carry every day. This education is continuing, but already public opinion is shifting with astonishing speed.
Third, we’re in the middle of a political realignment. The American public is vehemently rejecting Donald Trump’s Republican Party. The most telling sign is that the party has even given up on itself, a personality cult whose cult leader is over.
Fourth, a quasi-religion is seeking control of America’s cultural institutions. The acolytes of this quasi-religion, Social Justice, hew to a simplifying ideology: History is essentially a power struggle between groups, some of which are oppressors and others of which are oppressed. Viewpoints are not explorations of truth; they are weapons that dominant groups use to maintain their place in the power structure. Words can thus be a form of violence that has to be regulated.
Fifth, we could be on the verge of a prolonged economic depression. State and household budgets are in meltdown, some businesses are failing and many others are on the brink, the continuing health emergency will mean economic activity cannot fully resume.
{ He forgot climate change! ~ Barry :waccosun:}
These five changes, each reflecting a huge crisis and hitting all at once, have created a moral, spiritual and emotional disaster. Americans are now less happy than at any time since they started measuring happiness nearly 50 years ago. Americans now express less pride in their nation than at any time since Gallup started measuring it 20 years ago.
Americans look around the world and see that other nations are beating Covid-19 and we are failing. Americans look around and see state-sponsored violence — rhetorical and actual — inflicted on their fellow citizens. America doesn’t seem very exceptional.
In times like this, you’ve got to have a theory of change.
The loudest theory of change is coming from the Social Justice movement. This movement emerged from elite universities, and its basic premise is that if you can change the cultural structures you can change society.
{snip}
If you think the interplay of these five gigantic changes is going to fit into some neat ideological narrative, you’re probably wrong. If you think we can deal with a racial disparity, reform militaristic police departments and address an existential health crisis and a prolonged economic depression by taking the culture war up another notch, I think you’re mistaken.
Dealing with these problems is going to take government. It’s going to take actual lawmaking, actual budgeting, complex compromises — all the boring, dogged work of government that is more C-SPAN than Instagram.
I know a lot of people aren’t excited about him, but I thank God that Joe Biden is going to be nominated by the Democratic Party. He came to public life when it wasn’t about performing your zeal, it was about crafting coalitions and legislating. He exudes a spirit that is about empathy and friendship not animosity and canceling. The pragmatic spirit of the New Deal is a more apt guide for the years ahead than the spirit of critical theory symbology.
See full article here
Re: Tearing Down Statues and "Defunding Police" will not change life for the disadvant
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by luke32:
Excellent column from David Brooks explaining how tearing down, kneeling, defunding and politically correcting are not going to result in real change for the oppressed. Real change will require good politicians.
he says this:
Quote:
The loudest theory of change is coming from the Social Justice movement. This movement emerged from elite universities, and its basic premise is that if you can change the cultural structures you can change society.
this is where you remember his political leanings. He obviously considers himself far more reasonable than the ideologues whose water he usually carries, acknowledging the obvious, but framing things in a way that shows his heritage.
No, the "Social Justice" movement is not what he says it is. It did not emerge from elite universities. The 'basic premise' he states may be true, though. It 'arises' (which is another bogus framing, it's not arising, it predates the Civil War) from disparities in treatment of people. The abolitionists and immigrant-rights groups have always been making this case. At best you can say they're finally receiving more attention from the bourgeoisie, the group he firmly belongs in. He has never shown any ability to see issues from any other perspective - his biggest skill is to articulate their evolving world view, often with either surprise at what suddenly has become obvious to him, or smugness in what he seems to feel is a bit of a daring position he's willing to make. But he's firmly conventional.
The danger in Brooks is he gives cover or new arguments to people who might otherwise actually understand and adopt some new ideas. Here, he's trying to show that this "Social Justice" movement is essentially a fad of the out-of-touch elite, not to be taken too seriously. Every time I start to agree with him he'll pop out with something sly like this. He's a denatured Fox News personality, acceptable to the NPR crowd because he's smoothed off the rough edges and won't deny the obvious.
So yeah, this is a bit ad-hominem, but I hope I'm giving reasons why this hominoid's argument is misleading too.
Re: Tearing Down Statues and "Defunding Police" will not change life for the disadvant
The first step is to win the damn election. And the social justice movement, by itself, is not going to win the election. And when the Democrats win the election, its not going to be the "social justice' crowd that is paramount in accomplishing change through legislation.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
... Here, he's trying to show that this "Social Justice" movement is essentially a fad of the out-of-touch elite, not to be taken too seriously. ...
Re: Tearing Down Statues and "Defunding Police" will not change life for the disadvant
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by luke32:
The first step is to win the damn election. And the social justice movement, by itself, is not going to win the election. And when the Democrats win the election, its not going to be the "social justice' crowd that is paramount in accomplishing change through legislation.
true that. But I think the real social justice crowd has gotten bigger. I do love the concept of the Overton Window. This year, I think it's sinking in, more than any time in US history, that those suffering institutional oppression aren't some 'other' group, and that those free from that kind of oppression are obligated to support reforms. So yeah, I think the social justice crowd is big enough that politicians can appeal to them for support, and can enact some policies to start addressing justice issues.
Re: Tearing Down Statues and "Defunding Police" will not change life for the disadvant
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
true that. But I think the
real social justice crowd has gotten bigger. I do love the concept of the
Overton Window.
Here's a good article about the Overton Window. The current social justice movement is a good example of shifting the window plus Bernie's Medicare for All campaign. Both have shift formerly not feasible political initiatives to feasible.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...logo152x23.gif
How the Politically Unthinkable Can Become Mainstream
By Maggie Astor
You may have heard about the Overton window, and that’s not about to stop. With the political landscape shifting in sometimes startling ways, what was once an obscure idea has gained broader relevance.
But while the term has been bandied about lately, it hasn’t always been by people who know what they’re talking about. And it’s important to get this right. You’ve probably noticed that policies once dismissed out of hand — from “Medicare for all” to a 70 percent top tax rate; from sweeping action on climate change to abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement — are being discussed in mainstream circles now. The Overton window is a useful way to understand what’s happening.
Joseph P. Overton introduced the concept in the 1990s as an executive at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank in Michigan. He never expected it to gain widespread recognition, said Joseph G. Lehman, president of the Mackinac Center, and it didn’t until after Mr. Overton died in 2003.
Mr. Overton just wanted to explain to potential donors what the point of a think tank was, so he created a brochure with a cardboard slider. The brochure listed the range of possible policies on a single issue, from least to most government intervention. On education — an example the Mackinac Center uses — it might run from zero public investment in education to compulsory indoctrination in government schools. But neither of those extremes is going to happen. Only part of the range is achievable, and when Mr. Overton moved his slider, different policies fell into what he called the window of political possibility.
“Public officials cannot enact any policy they please like they’re ordering dessert from a menu,” Mr. Lehman said in an interview. “They have to choose from among policies that are politically acceptable at the time. And we believe the Overton window defines that range of ideas.”
Grass-roots mobilization can shift the window. So can think tanks, which was Mr. Overton’s point. But despite a misconception driven by Glenn Beck’s novel “The Overton Window,” the window is a description, not a tactic: Shifting it doesn’t mean proposing extreme ideas to make somewhat less extreme ideas seem reasonable.
“It just explains how ideas come in and out of fashion, the same way that gravity explains why something falls to the earth,” Mr. Lehman said. “I can use gravity to drop an anvil on your head, but that would be wrong. I could also use gravity to throw you a life preserver; that would be good.”
The key is that shifts begin with the public. Mr. Overton argued that the role of organizations like his own was not to lobby politicians to support policies outside the window, but to convince voters that policies outside the window should be in it. If they are successful, an idea derided as unthinkable can become so inevitable that it’s hard to believe it was ever otherwise.
The current shift toward progressive economic policies is clear and quantifiable. Take some of the legislation introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, whose 2016 presidential campaign helped popularize these ideas. In 2015, his bills to make public colleges free and expand Social Security had no co-sponsors in the Senate. Two years later, they had seven and 17, respectively, in addition to 50 and 133 co-sponsors in the House. His signature measure, the Medicare for All Act, had no Senate co-sponsors in 2013 (he didn’t introduce it in 2015), but four years later it had 16, along with 125 in the House.
“We have come a very, very long way in the American people now demanding legislation and concepts that just a few years ago were thought to be very radical,” Mr. Sanders said in a recent interview.
Continues here
Re: Tearing Down Statues and "Defunding Police" will not change life for the disadvant
Thanks for introducing me to the "Overton window".
I think it is much easier to induce a shift in attitudes than to turn these shifts into legislation. Such attitudinal changes include a more clear understanding of 'the sins of the past' and their affect on present day Blacks, or the need for non-discriminatory treatment on the basis of sexuality, and, certainly, the acceptance of the idea that decent medical care is a human right.
But it is another matter, to legislate these changes - best example being Medicare For All. When something like 40% of voters are very satisfied with their private health insurance, you're simply not going to win the election that will put you into power to legislate MFA. So making it a centerpiece of your platform is nonsensical. And 16 co-sponsoring Senators and 125 in the House doesn't impress me.
First, win the damn election!
